- From: Tom Morris <bbtommorris@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:34:23 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 6/24/07, liorean <liorean@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, the namespace issue is such that backwards compatibility > requires "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". Even if we made our own > HTML5/XML namespace* it would only be an alias for the same set of > semantics as the XHTML1 namespace. Existing XHTML1 content uses > "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" and user agents have to support that > indefinitely. > The namespace issue is a distraction since XHTML 2 is an XHTML variant but uses a different namespace than XHTML 1.x. That something uses the XHTML namespace does not make it XHTML. I have written an XML format for internal use that lets you use elements from the XHTML namespace but it is *not* XHTML! This is all eerily similar of RSS 0.9.x/1.0/2.0. There hasn't been mass confusion caused by Atom not being called RSS 3.0 or RSS anything, actually. -- Tom Morris http://tom.opiumfield.com/blog/
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 15:34:30 UTC